SS practicing Christian: What do you say Scripture is?

[mattp0625]

With careful reading and prayerful study, the Bible isn’t too mysterious. There are resources created by people who have studied the Bible in the original language and are well educated on the passages and the historical context. There is no guarantee that errors can’t be made in interpreting it. I just am not convinced that any group does have the ability to interpret scripture without error.

Jesus’ parents being Jewish and making the temple sacrifices are in the Bible. I am not very familiar with Hanukkah. I do not celebrate Hanukkah or have the celebration as an integral part of my faith in Jesus.

Many Protestant denominations claim to have the true scripture translations because they have scholars who studied the original manuscripts.

Some claim it’s the ESV, others KJV, etc.

The issue is that none of them lived in first century Israel or Greece, or within 1,500 years of them.

Think of the changes in the English language over the last 500 years. Now, consider the words highway or flying and the change in meaning.

The point is that the Catholic Church uses translations that were closer to the time and culture of Jesus. The Latin Vulgate was translated from Greek Hebrew and Old Latin around 400 AD by Saint Jerome. He was actually in Jerusalem and Antioch within 300 years of the scripture writers.

This was not long after the synods determined which scriptures were inspired.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I am always astounded at the gymnastics that surround this issue.

Did God give us his son, or throw a book at us?
It’s really that simple.

God gave us his son, incarnate in human flesh, living among a people in the fullness of time, establishing a community. The book comes out of that community not the other way around.

It’s unavoidable for a Christian:
The Son of God is God’s fullest and final revelation.
All of it, including “theopnesustos”, comes from his person.

His person and his community validate the book. Without that you have nothing but a book disconnected from reality.

**Jesus is a person, not a book. **

Interesting point and something I have pondered recently as well.

Allah pretty much throws a book at Muslims and expects full compliance with it’s instructions. Don’t mean to sound insulting to Muslims, but I am really amazed at how impersonal that is.

In Christianity we have a faith that had multiple offices established by Jesus( the God-man) himself John 20:21-23. And a visible Church that is said to be the foundation of the Truth and made authoritative decisions Matt 18:17 The same Church that decreed the NT and gave it to the world.

Yet much of Christendom chooses to sit in a corner with their bible and neglect the importance of the visible Church in favor of some abstract body of believers with no official parameters.

And it’s this same branch of Christendom that has separated itself from it’s roots, yet claims to be the closest to God.

The Catholic Church is called “Mother church” for a reason…because we need to be nursed. Life and the spiritual walk we endure is tough, even if we have the bible internalized.

 

[clem456]

I know the Bible is inerrant because the Bible is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16), has been shown to be historically accurate, and about 2000 years later is just as powerful, true, and life changing as it has ever been.

The question remains:
And you know all this because…
?

(keep in mind there are lots of religious books which claim the truth)

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

susanlo;13804574]The Scriptures are infallible. Those reading it are fallible.

susanlo; your post brings joy to my heart, and hope for a dialogue that can open doors to better understanding to clarify ones position between SS and Sacred Apostolic Tradition.

The question is whether some humans were gifted with the ability to interpret Scriptures infallibly or not. That is where the difference is.

This subject you introduce about interpreting sacred scripture is very sensitive to the Church herself. In fact, some may be surprised to know, that the Catholic Church does not interpret Scripture (something to be grasped, for only God can give testimony (interpret) of who God is), She leaves the study of interpretation of scripture to her biblical scholars, Doctors and theologians both past and present, that can never contradict one another. To my knowledge, the Church came close to interpreting one scripture that dealt with a Marian doctrine of faith.

What is interesting, when an interpretation of scripture is reached by those qualified. The Church herself, will exercise her God given authority (keys to bind and loose) test, scrutinize that interpretation using scripture, sacred Tradition (that includes divine revealed revelation) to **allow **it to be taught (Nihil Obstate) so long as it does not obstruct from the whole of scripture and the whole of Apostolic Sacred Tradition, or (Imprimatur)allow the interpretation to be printed. Although, this does not mean that the Church is bound to any one interpretation, She remains free here, as Key holder.

So, no one in the eyes of the Church are capable of interpreting God’s Word fully or God Himself. The Church allows us the freedom to enter the mysteries of God’s Word and come away with an interpretation. But only the Church herself, has the divine authority to bind them or loose them upon the earth.

She rejected Sola Scriptura, because it comes from man, not from God or divine revelation. She never objects to the authority of Scripture.

Infallibility, in short, is not used by the Church to interpret scripture. She is protected by the Holy Spirit to teach infallibly on faith and morals, that will not contradict sacred scripture and sacred Tradition, which is a rare occasion. This protection is held, if all of Peter’s brethren were to fall away from the Truth, Jesus promises Peter’s faith will not fail, and is to call his brethren back. Sorry, did not mean to ramble on here.

I think sola scriptura was about using the Bible instead of Tradition.

One can use Sola Scriptura when faith can call upon it. But we cannot use Sola Scriptura to reject Sacred Tradition, because the NT Sola Scriptura came from Sacred Oral Tradition, and Sola Scriptura gives witness (not details) to our Catholic practices from the apostolic Traditions which we still practice today unchanged.

People were objecting to the belief that the Traditions were infallible and equal to the Bible.

The Traditions we Catholics practice are Infallible and God breathed. They do not and cannot change, because they are revealed by God, for us to do “in remembrance of me”. The Catholic Mass,The Eucharist and baptism are infallible revelations by God, handed down to us in practice by Jesus and the Apostles. The Scripture’s hold us to them, but scripture does not give detail instructions how to practice them, we need the infallible Tradition handed down to us by Jesus and His apostles.

Sola scriptura isn’t an infallible practice. It is about using only infallible written word as an authority.

How does SS use the infallible word to refute heresy in the Church without an infallible authority?

Can you explain how, that which is fallible can use that which is infallible to exercise a fallible authority over another.

The Catholic Church can answer this question. Can SS answer it?

 

[Darryl_B]

With careful reading and prayerful study, the Bible isn’t too mysterious. There are resources created by people who have studied the Bible in the original language and are well educated on the passages and the historical context. There is no guarantee that errors can’t be made in interpreting it. I just am not convinced that any group does have the ability to interpret scripture without error.

The Catholic Church claims an infallible declaration of dogma. The Catholic Church does not claim to know every verse, only the framework, much of which I might add, has been borrowed by protestants. So I agree with your sentiment. Reading the Bible within the framework of the Catholic Churches dogmas will not produce conflict with that dogma. The Catholic Church dogma is harmonious with that Scripture.

I do however disagree that the Bible isn’t too much of a mystery. Quite frankly it is. I believe it contains everything required for us, but also it contains meanings currently hidden to us, that will only become apparent to us when a currently non-existent heresy comes along. Whether this has been aided by the protestant go it alone mentalilty is quite possibly debatable.

 

[susanlo]

The question remains:
And you know all this because…
?

(keep in mind there are lots of religious books which claim the truth)

I don’t know how to answer this. I don’t know that this can be proven from a scientific standpoint. I am not sure what you are asking for sure. There is a faith element involved. The Scriptures meet the historical tests of accuracy and are proven to be useful and meaningful back then and are useful and meaningful now. I trust God was able to complete this written work to teach His believers His truths that are relevant to all times. But there is definitely an element of faith that has to go into trusting the Bible. I am not an expert in Biblical history and I am sure that there are better answers to this.

 

[alwayswill]

Are you claiming that God was not a divine person in 1400bc?
That would be an odd position for a Christian to hold.

Assuming you are trinitarian, do you believe the second person of the Trinity existed in 1400bc? The Holy Spirit?

Let me ask you, before the OT was written, was there a person or a book?

So, yes, there is a claim that Jesus is a book, however indirectly that claim is made.

that doesn’t deserve an answer:
I’m not playing the twist -my words- into absurdity game

 

[clem456]

I don’t know how to answer this. I don’t know that this can be proven from a scientific standpoint. I am not sure what you are asking for sure. There is a faith element involved. The Scriptures meet the historical tests of accuracy and are proven to be useful and meaningful back then and are useful and meaningful now. I trust God was able to complete this written work to teach His believers His truths that are relevant to all times. But there is definitely an element of faith that has to go into trusting the Bible. I am not an expert in Biblical history and I am sure that there are better answers to this.

How do you know about Jesus Christ?
You were not born with the knowledge of the book.

Here we both are, making conflicting statements about the nature of Christianity.

You know about Christianity how…?

The answer I am getting at is
you only know what the Bible is, who Jesus is…
all these matters of faith have been passed to you from other people.

There is no poster here who stands on his or her own ground, and claims to know the faith outside of some tradition which was given to you from someone else. There is a personhood that is rooted in Tradition (or tradition, whatever the case may be) going back to Christ, whether you can admit it or not. You cannot claim to have come to the faith on your own, with the book as the primer mover.

Prior to your knowing anything about anything, there stood people who possessed what you now have and passed it on to you.
The “traditions of men”, if you will.

 

[alwayswill]

The phrase “sola scriptura” means “Only Scripture” or “Scripture Alone”. This was its original intent. .

you are in error:

The Latin phrase in in the ablative tense meaning; By Scripture alone.
Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by Scripture alone”)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

1. the correct translation of “Sola Scriptura " is exactly “by Scripture alone".
   en.allexperts.com/q/Latin-2145/2015/11/solas-ablative-nominative.htm

 

[susanlo]

How do you know about Jesus Christ?
You were not born with the knowledge of the book.

Here we both are, making conflicting statements about the nature of Christianity.

You know about Christianity how…?

The answer I am getting at is
you only know what the Bible is, who Jesus is…
all these matters of faith have been passed to you from other people.

There is no poster here who stands on his or her own ground, and claims to know the faith outside of some tradition which was given to you from someone else. There is a personhood that is rooted in Tradition (or tradition, whatever the case may be) going back to Christ, whether you can admit it or not. You cannot claim to have come to the faith on your own, with the book as the primer mover.

Prior to your knowing anything about anything, there stood people who possessed what you now have and passed it on to you.
The “traditions of men”, if you will.

I have learned a lot from other people who have read the Bible. I was taught about the Bible by others. Christianity has been passed through the generations and by word of mouth to new places. Is this what you are referring to? I agree with that.
I just think that if there is ever a question, the place to seek answers is to go to the Bible as God’s Word of truth and authority. I am not sure if other sources carry the same truth and authority.

 

[alwayswill]

How do you know you are using it correctly? Words on a page have difficulty correcting an erroneous reading. Besides, everyone must admit that some Traditions are infallible and equal to the Bible. For example, the Tradition that Jesus’ parents and He were practicing Jews, offering the Temple Sacrifices on the day of His circumcision, or celebrating the Feast of Hanukkah, and much more.

no; i don’t admit that any non-Biblcal traditions are infallible (meaning incapable of error)
That’s the point
Being 100% correct does not mean infallible

 

[alwayswill]

Excellent post, thank you.

I agree Jesus humanity is infallible. But what Christian can deny that Jesus can make one infallible when Jesus is with him.

For argument sake, let’s take the visible Word. When Jesus called out to Peter to come to him. Did not Peter become infallible by walking on water with Jesus?

When Peter raised the dead. Was not Peter infallible to do such an act witnessed by others?

When Peter baptized, was He not infallible to do so. When Peter proclaims Jesus ‘Christ crucified’ are not his public words infallible?

The scriptures reveals With God, all things are possible. How come it is difficult for a SS to believe or have faith, that God can allow Peter to walk on water or become infallible, when God is with him.

Granted Peter by himself could never walk on water. But if God choses Peter to speak infallible under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit on faith and morals, it is God’s will not man’s will that the Gospel of Jesus Christ be proclaimed infallibly to every nation, people and tongue.

If, your infallible definition leaves God out of your definition, then it is never a Catholic teaching.

If SS do not believe SS is infallible. Using the Catholic definition, Under the protection of Holy Spirit protecting it from error.

How then can SS be used for teaching and correcting or refuting error? From where does SS get the authority to bind and loose error or teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ without error?

Can you give an example here?

No : I can’t give an example of SS to bind and loose error or teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ without error.
You are using the words is a confusing way:
The doctrine/ practice of Sola Scriptura is not Scripture.

The words are are not interchangeable,

 

[clem456]

I have learned a lot from other people who have read the Bible. I was taught about the Bible by others. Christianity has been passed through the generations and by word of mouth to new places. Is this what you are referring to? I agree with that.
I just think that if there is ever a question, the place to seek answers is to go to the Bible as God’s Word of truth and authority. I am not sure if other sources carry the same truth and authority.

And when there are disagreements about the answers, some of which have life and death implications,
you will know you have a truthful answer because…?

 

[susanlo]

And when there are disagreements about the answers, some of which have life and death implications,
you will know you have a truthful answer because…?

Because the Bible says so.
Do you have a particular scenario in mind?

 

[benhur]

I am always astounded at the gymnastics that surround this issue.

Did God give us his son, or throw a book at us?
It’s really that simple.

God gave us his son, incarnate in human flesh, living among a people in the fullness of time, establishing a community. The book comes out of that community not the other way around.

It’s unavoidable for a Christian:
The Son of God is God’s fullest and final revelation.
All of it, including “theopnesustos”, comes from his person.

His person and his community validate the book. Without that you have nothing but a book disconnected from reality.

**Jesus is a person, not a book. **

Hi clem,

a quick read says I totally agree (except with your either/or for it is both). SS totally seems to agree also.

Blessings

PS here is good post from alwayswill showing what SS is and is not: modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var2=19

 

[rcwitness]

Hi rc, good to ‘see’ you here.

Thanks ben! I enjoy when you are in a thread. I actually don’t want to spend too much time posting here, because I feel we (Catholics) have barged into a thread aimed at Non-Catholic Christians who belief and practice SS. I think we should spend more time observing and learning this one.

Theopneustos is an adjective for Writ, and as found in Writ, not the church. The church however, is the pillar of the truth, as found in Writ, *now *holding up Apostolic teaching and their Writ as the Word of God.

Scripture is a large part of Revelation which came out of the Church, no?

Ephesians 3

To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.

Because the church holds up the Word does not mean she is equal to that which she holds up. That should not be a problem unless divine revlation thru apostles and Writ is not enough, or complete.

Revelation is complete. Confirmation by the Church is continuously feeding the faithful. The Holy Spirit guides the Church and it’s members, individually. Scripture is awsome! The most awsome gift the Church has received, along with His Eucharist and Holy Spirit! It is living, so don’t let Catholics let you think we don’t believe it is! It is also Materially Sufficient for our salvation. Proper understanding and Communion with the Church is what Scripture draws us towards.

 

[benhur]

It appears you are entering dangerous waters here, which I would prefer to debate only Orthodox Church members, who are better qualified in understanding our Greek and Latin Fathers interpretation of Holy Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. In short it takes one who lives and practices the Apostolic Sacred Tradition’s in order to debate them through councils. So I will not move to another subject.

Hi gabe,

Ok but then can one say you enter dangerous waters when trying to discern/debate something, SS, that you do not live out or believe or practice ? Did not know P’s are cut off from counciliar foundations… Anyways , I was only going by what a good Catholic Father, defender of the faith, pointed out (use of council(s)) by a heretic he was dialoguing with.

Interesting, re-read what Jesus reveals to his opponents of the Law. Jesus not only reflects the written law, but He floors them with the Oral Prophetic Sacred Tradition ( that exposes them to God’s presence, who is Himself), which Paul a Pharisee recognized as both Scripture and Oral Sacred Tradition as being fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

It might help to be more specific.

Writ never competed with “prophets” but prophets had to be in accordance with what was written before them and as you know prophets were plentiful and varied , and were to be "tested’ .They were not thought of as infallible. Rather it was to be discerned if they were "correct’’ in their prophecy or not. The apostle and the *prophets *are our foundation,and their writ. The current “living stones” that Peter mentions in the current church are.not competing with that original foundation

Mark 12:24 Jesus said to them, “Are you not misled because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God?

Again, the power of God is not negated with SS, and should not also by any sort of church normative structure. Anyways , Jesus finishes the above quote with this, “…have you not read…”

This is my whole premise. Scriptures alone does not suffice because they can mislead the many.

totally agree, with your straw man.

SS is not in a vacuum . SS is in context of the guardian church and the rule of faith. “Scripture alone” is in context or meaning to separate from tradition as an equal revelation. That is where the “alone” comes from , as in apart from, claimed inerrant divine tradition.

What is missing in Sola Scriptura, is the Power of God, that is present in Apostolic Sacred Living Tradition with Sacred Scripture that is protected and possessed within the Body of Jesus Christ the Church of the living God, the Pillar and bulwark of Truth.

Agree, but only if I go along with straw man, a misrepresentation of a vacuumed literal look at “scripture alone”.

The good news is that I am totally with you on the power of God, and on the living church/ body, the pillar of the truth, that Christ used and uses to save and keep me/us saved, not apart from His Word. Faith came by hearing and to a living preacher.

I am sorry ben; but are you not arguing in my favor here; I will only make a few brief comments in response out of respect for your post.

I will stick to my guns of the primary weappn Anthanasius used , for you asked if SS ever fought heretics. But thank you and understand and am thankful for the councils and the popes and the western church fighting the heresy. The council did not end the battle as did not the pope. They did eventually help , but I believe because they rightly divided the Word of God on the matter, and continued to put reason from Writ forward spearheaded by Anthanasius, being in his backyard.

For the sake of what has been discussed; The difference between the original Apostles and their Apostolic successors. The OA’s were given divine revelation and handed them down both orally and written.

Agree. The successors were sort of guardians, even teachers of that foundational apostolic revelation. They did not however become equal in divine revelation to that original foundation.

The Apostolic office has not changed. The first are given and the successors are to hand down what was given to them by Jesus and His apostles.

I trust Writ and a current church that considers itself not equal to it as a divine revelation authority but as a proclaimer and protector of said divine apostolic writ foundation and the rule of faith the early church provided.

We are not talking sentimental feelings, or high regard to a status when divine revelation was given, that is a given by the apostolic successors. We are discussing apostolic office does not change.

Understand. Still say Pope Francis is not as divinely authoritatively revelational/normative as Peter. This proposed three legged equality, from what I have been reading, is about as new or just before the reformation.

modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var2=19

Blessings

 

[Darryl_B]

you are in error:

The Latin phrase in in the ablative tense meaning; By Scripture alone.
Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by Scripture alone”)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

1. the correct translation of “Sola Scriptura " is exactly “by Scripture alone".
   en.allexperts.com/q/Latin-2145/2015/11/solas-ablative-nominative.htm

That is exactly what I said. Though it could equally be “with” or “from”. What is your point?

 

[benhur]

Then how can all authority rest with the Bible, since the Bible is the 3rd Floor, and Sacred Tradition the 2nd Floor?

Hi Sy,

Did not know there was no writ before the apostles. Nothing is all except for Christ.

I understand that our foundation is the apostles and their Writ. If you want to dichotimize the first layer, the works of the apostles, fine, but the early church did not. I lump everything the apostles did said and finally wrote as the first floor. Even by your analogy we are still above at least the third floor.
.

No 3rd Century (or 21st Century) Apostolic See claims to have ‘new revelation’ (e.g. Joseph Smith, Muhammad, Bahaullah, etc) only a clarification of the old in today’s time.

That is the problem with “tradition”,and even misapplying writ . That though old things are “clarified”, expounded upon, they somehow do change things or make the old of no effect, and therby you have something “new”…

Blessings

 

[susanlo]

How does SS use the infallible word to refute heresy in the Church without an infallible authority?

If someone is stating something heretical, then one only needs to quote Scripture to show that it is wrong. Some issues are contested and it is up to each individual to carefully read Scripture and make a determination as to which they should believe.

Can you explain how, that which is fallible can use that which is infallible to exercise a fallible authority over another.

The Catholic Church can answer this question. Can SS answer it?

God and His Word are the only religious authorities I have ever recognized. There are institutional church leaders and well-educated teachers that can lead and educate, but they are not infallible. I don’t think one individual needs to exercise authority over another, but just teach truth and let the Holy Spirit take care of the rest.